Conducting the Environmental Impact Analysis and Assessment - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 211

It was a project with multiple beneficial goals, including economic stimula-
tion. It also involved infringement on significant environmental resources
including extraordinary scenic value, habitat of an extensive variety of fish
and wildlife, and a population of 22 freshwater mussel species, including
two species under consideration for listing under the Endangered Species
Act. The project involved multiple federal actions including joint funding by
the NRCS and Appalachian Regional Commission (a federal agency estab-
lished to assist in the economic development of the Appalachian region), and
importantly a wetlands permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. Thus with the inherent potential impacts associ-
ated with damming a river an EIS under NEPA was required.
Even with serious objections raised by the U.S. EPA and Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on both draft and final EISs, the
NRCS and U.S. Army Corp issued a ROD to build the dam on the North
Fork of the Hughes River. The EPA even informed the Corps that the final
EIS was inadequate and a supplemental EIS should be prepared before going
forward with the project.
Concurrent with the final EIS and ROD, the U.S. Army Corps announced
the intention to issue a Draft 404 wetlands permit for the project and noted
that the NRCS had already prepared an EIS for the project. In their review of
the wetland permit, the EPA repeated comments on the EIS, and took excep-
tion to the project including warning the Corps that the dam and reservoir
would probably cause infestation of the North Fork by zebra mussels. EPA
comments also requested a supplemental EIS to address zebra mussel infesta-
tion, and thus take a hard look at impacts associated with invasive mussels.
In response to these comments, the U.S. Army Corps stated that the District
Office biologist discussed the zebra mussel issue with an employee of the
Corps's water quality section who stated mussel infestation was not a concern.
The District Office of the U.S. Corps informed the EPA and FWS that they
intended to issue a 404 permit and did not resolve or even address all issued
raised by the other agencies. Both agencies elevated the intended district
office action to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and
requested a review of the district office's decision to issue the 404 permit. In
response to EPA and FWS comments, the Assistant Secretary directed the
District Office to undertake a comprehensive reevaluation of alternatives to
the project.
The district office conformed to the Assistant Secretary's direction and
prepared a memorandum for the record that rejected all the alternatives to
the proposed action to build the dam. The EPA and FWS objected to the
findings of the memorandum. Corps headquarters concurred with the
District Office's memorandum for record and issued a Draft 404 permit for
the project. In issuing the permit the Corps noted that the NRCS had already
prepared an EIS and concluded: “There has been no new evidence or infor-
mation that would require that the [EIS] be supplemented.”